ma_testfandomcom-20200214-history
Talk:Star Trek: The Next Generation
Page protection This page has been a vandal target over the past couple weeks. It is currently protected from unregistered users, however, the protection level can be upgraded if things get worse. --Alan del Beccio 23:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC) Sidebar The numeration should be standard für all series pages. The new sidebar is good, but a repetition (of the intro). Why are the season links seperated from the header? -- 07:35, 31 Mar 2005 (EST) :Actually the numeration is the only thing I think that doesn't suit the side. If there would be a way to either numerate them from episode 1 to 176 it would be ok, but this way it is not suitable. -- Kobi - [[ :Kobi|( )]] 08:23, 31 Mar 2005 (EST) ::I think it looks much worse than before, although I don't mind the sidebar so much. I think the pictures on the side-bar should be reversed, however, like the ship image at the top and the cast picture at the bottom. So I think the side-bar is okay, but the changes which have been made to the rest of the page look disasterous, in my opinion! Also, I think too much background info is on the side-bar. --Defiant | ''Talk'' 12:20, 31 Mar 2005 (EST) I believe we should do this democratically and vote for whether those changes are made permanently. --Defiant | ''Talk'' 12:36, 31 Mar 2005 (EST) Reverted edits *Memory Alpha editing policy discourages putting links in header lines -- i've been trying to remove it, but people seem to want to continuously revert the style *Numerical lists seem necessary to me because the individual episode pages now include seasonxepisode notation (4x20) etc, and this makes it easier to reference them back to the season article in that manner *The season lists are groups of links which are not prone to need edits anymore, as such, since they are duplicated on a few separate pages, are best represented by templates. *There was originally no reference in some series articles to the following links: NBC, UPN, Paramount Pictures, ILM, etc -- these topics should be listed with the series they apply to. I'm suggesting adding them to a browser table, but i am open to suggestions, as long as these topics are acknowledged in the article somewhere. Please do not remove links to things if they don't fit your idea of how the article should be structured -- Defiant -- just because you don't like the idea of a browser table there, you shouldn't start reverting edits and removing links to these topics, orphaning some of the articles. If you wish to suggest rearranging what I did, do so, but it was a poor choice of a preliminary move to simply remove all of my changes out of hand. I'm open to suggestions from all users of course, how this information should be arranged, or to discuss removal of irrelevant information. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 13:43, 31 Mar 2005 (EST) :Okay, sorry about that Mike. It just seemed to me like you weren't being very responsive in arguing your case for the changes you made. You responded to none of the messages I left, including on your talk page and at Ten Forward. --Defiant | ''Talk'' 14:10, 31 Mar 2005 (EST) Changes Which Could Be Made :I think "Ship=Enterprise-D" should be added to the side-bar, and the numbering system should be in the form you suggested here (4x01, for example), rather than just 01 or 1, like it was before (missing out the season number). I also think arcs could be noted, such as the Dominion War arc in Season 6 of DS9 and the Augment/Babel Crisis in ENT: Season 4. Also, I don't know if others have the same problem, but I find that not linking the season headings to the actual seasons makes the series pages harder to edit. Thank you for your response on this occasion and hope you will respond to my suggestions (whether that is positively or negatively) . . . ? --Defiant | ''Talk'' 13:56, 31 Mar 2005 (EST) ::We can add the old caption i corrected ("The Enterprise-D") and 4.01 4.02 and so on is OK, but in view of the headings not necessary - the main thing is that you dont have to count the 15. episode of a season (e. g.) -- 15:48, 1 Apr 2005 (EST) :::Although it may not be necessary, it's more accurate to have 4x13, and so on, as these are written in Memory Alpha's format for episode numbers. It would probably also be slightly easier to then add the episode numbers to individual episodes. --Defiant | ''Talk'' 08:32, 2 Apr 2005 (EST) ::::Could we use a bot for it? Or manual? -- 15:28, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT) I actually must raise my concern again, using a numbered system does harm the look of the site. The names are no longer dominant, the numbers are. The old bullets were much more neutral in their look. Also on what numereing scheme will you decide? Airdate, Production, DVD-order? Again it is the logical decision to keep out he numbers, they are well kept on the individual episode pages. -- Kobi - [[ :Kobi|( )]] 16:07, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT) :We have an airdate scheme here ;-) And the search engine can´t get the numbers within the articles. -- 16:32, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT) ::I still think this is an important issue to discuss, as the individual series pages don't match. (For example, some of the season headings link to the individual season pages, while others have their links under the season headings.) --Defiant | ''Talk'' 14:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC) :::Is there still Archivists who have a problem with using 1x01, 1x02, etc.? --Defiant | ''Talk'' 14:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC) :I personally would like to have some kind of notification of which articles are Featured Articles. That'd be nice. ::You can find a list of featured articles here. To find out what articles are currently being discussed for featured status, click here. --From Andoria with Love 06:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC) Images in Summary Do we really need all the images? It is horrible on the load time, and there is a summary provided. Not to mention 3 seasons still need them, and if the season pages (ie: TNG Season 4, TNG Season 7) has them, I don't see the point of having them here. Anyone agree? ((EDIT: On a separate note, the fact that the seasons don't have summaries on them seems a little odd)) - AJ Halliwell 09:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC) :I concur. Let us be rid of these images! Forsooth, and whatnot! --From Andoria with Love 09:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC) ::I strongly disagree. The images make it easy to identify what episode it is, especially when the description is vague. The images greatly enhance the look of the page, and loading time is still quite short. -- Jaz talk 18:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC) :::I agree with Jaz. A thumbnail for each episode really enables a quick identification of those. Could we come to a final decision concerning this issue, so the community can start to add the pics for all series? --BlueMars 20:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC) ::::At last check, all were removed. Again. I think that they look decent, but I also think that we need to finish filling out the episode summary pictures (as in, the main one at the top of the summary) first. Then maybe use those pics as the thumbnails too. -- Sulfur 21:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC) :::I checked and optimized all ENT epidode pages regarding their title screenshots. So, shall we add them now as thumbnails in the episode list? Or do we wait until all episodes of all series have been checked? Could someone please describe how to edit the episode lists? Thanks. --BlueMars 16:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC) :::Checked and optimized all TNG episodes aswell. Since there was no consenus reached here, I interprete this discussion as in favor of the thumbnails, since two users are against, and three for it. --BlueMars 21:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC) :::@Shran Where did we decide against it? --BlueMars 21:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC) ::::Actually, there was a consensus at the time the images were removed – two for deleting, one for keeping the images, after which you expressed your agreement for keeping the images a month later. If you wish to add the images, it might be best to start another vote and see what that brings. --From Andoria with Love 21:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Behind the Scenes This paragraph reads like it was taken from a book: : "Andrew Probert was first hired by Gene Roddenberry in 1978. However, not until 1986, when Roddenberry was preparing to launch a new show, entitled Star Trek: The Next Generation, did he call upon Probert to take a lead design role. Everything had to be rethought, imagined, planned and redesigned. As the vision evolved in the designers' minds, the evolution was charted in successive sketches and paintings, some of which in elaborate and perfect detail are shown here. They are unique, one-of-a-kind originals." -- StAkAr Karnak 17:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Forum:TNG episode reviews by Wil Wheaton (with Behind-the-scenes info) I just thought I'd let you know about this: http://www.tvsquad.com/bloggers/wil-wheaton/ This page contains, at the moment, reviews for 5 early TNG episodes, written by Wil Wheaton, with more to come, apparently. Not only are these reviews very amusing, they also contain Behind-the-scenes info which may be worked into some of our articles. Have fun. -- Cid Highwind 20:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC) :What behind the scenes info should we add? Is the Michael Dorn was "playing at love" with Brenda Bakke during the filming of item worthy of a bg note? --Bp 09:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Diana Muldaur Was Diana Muldaur (Dr. Pulaski) actually ever part of the main cast? She was only on for one season, and it always listed her as a "special guest star". If she is listed as part of the main cast, shouldn't Whoopi Goldberg (Guinan) be listed as well? --DaveS86 22:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC) * I seem to recall reading that she was listed as a special guest star at her own special request. leandar 05:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC) * Leandar is correct. Throughout all of Season 2 for each episode, Diana Muldaur is mentioned in the opening credits after the title sequence as "special guest star". --Steph6n 10:32, April 20, 2012 (UTC) Asian Members in the Cast I was wondering, every Star Trek series has at least one Asian member in its cast( major or minor roles ). In TOS, there was Hikaru Sulu, in DS9, there was Chief O'Brien's wife; In VOY, there was Harry Kim and in ENT Hoshi Sato. Which member of the TNG cast was Asian? Thank you. : Who cares? That's just race junk and having nothing to do with the quality of the actors themselves. leandar 17:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC) ::"O'Brien's wife" was also in TNG. Thanks for dropping the offensive language, 59. --TribbleFurSuit 02:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC) :::Not to mention Nurse Ogawa and probably many others. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC) ::There was this command division person sorry, tried to keep a straight face but failed that --TribbleFurSuit 03:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Relevance? The following statement appears in the intro paragraph: "DS9, on the other hand, balanced political intrigue, soap-like character development, and series-long plot threads with a rerun-friendly format." Is this relevant to TNG, or is it actually about DS9?--Pooneil 16:18, November 9, 2011 (UTC) 99 years after the original, not 78 "Gene Roddenberry ultimately changed the timeline to mid-24th century, only 78 years after the original" This is wrong. TNG episode 'Encounter at Farpoint' takes place in 2364, 99 years after TOS episode 'Where No Man Has Gone Before', which takes place in 2265. 78 are the years between the launching of Enterprise-B and the final mission of Enterprise-D, as seen in Generations. I'm correcting this mistake now. Spock2266 22:08, April 3, 2012 (UTC) :I think the figure is based on the difference between and Encounter at Farpoint- 2364-2285 = 78. 31dot 22:14, April 3, 2012 (UTC) ::I don't think it was based on anything really. I remember very well when TNG premiered at the beginning, the narrator remarked "78 years have passed since the days of the original USS ''Enterprise."'' I think it was a later retcon that set TNG at 99 years or so after TOS. I am fairly confident that they were referring to the original series and not the events of the movies initially. And yes, 78 years does tend to be the difference in time frames from ST IV to Farpoint, but I bet that's more a case of coincidence because the dates of the episodes and films hadn't been set yet. leandar 01:02, April 4, 2012 (UTC) :::Given the ambiguity, I think it would be best simply to remove the "only 78 years after the original" bit. The bit about the promotional use of 78 years is already at the end of the section, though I note that it lacks a citation.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 08:02, April 4, 2012 (UTC) :That's probably the best way to go, as we could debate such a figure ad infinitum. 31dot 08:35, April 4, 2012 (UTC) Discrepancy in Airdates Why are many of the listed TNG 'original airdates' on this page two days earlier than the airdates as listed on the individual episode pages? See Season 7 for example. 23:44, May 28, 2012 (UTC) :I'm not entirely sure, but the dates on this page might represent the week the episode aired, since TNG was a syndicated program. 31dot 00:15, May 29, 2012 (UTC) ::Me again. Thanks for the info, except that doesn't sound right to me because the dates on this page tend to fall on Saturdays, whereas the dates for the DS9 episodes airing the same week tend to fall on Sundays. (BTW in my local area both first-run shows aired on Saturdays at 7pm and 8pm.) If the series pages were listing the 'week of' then you would think that the TNG dates and the DS9 dates would be the same, if Saturday is considered the 'beginning of the week of' day. Anyway the whole airdate system here doesn't make much sense to me and doesn't hang together and I don't feel I can rely on Memory Alpha at all for airdates, I'll have to do more research elsewhere. 01:23, May 30, 2012 (UTC) Blu-Ray parenthases The whole "rematered version" thing is so annoying. As If the treatment is a so-called remastering from DVD to Blu-Ray, it IS a remastering. What is the meaning of this? It should say Remastered version, not "Remastered version".-- 16:15, August 7, 2012 (UTC) :I'm not entirely clear on what it is you are referring to. 31dot (talk) 16:49, August 7, 2012 (UTC) The screencaps thus far of Season 1 as well as Sins of the Father and The Inner Light. This is taken from the "remastered version" is what they all say underneath the image. It is quite stupid, what purpose does it serve?-- 20:57, August 7, 2012 (UTC) :It serves the purpose of informing people where the images come from, to provide for full disclosure. We also have to provide full source information for legal reasons. It's still remastered, even if it looks the same or similar as the unremastered version. 31dot (talk) 21:02, August 7, 2012 (UTC) 0K, I will grant you that, but the "" are not necessary.-- 00:51, August 8, 2012 (UTC) ::I removed the quotation marks in the template.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 02:24, August 8, 2012 (UTC) Future of TNG I was looking at the Wiki Activity page and noticed some disagreement about the last sentence. It's true that the failure of Nemesis directly led to the reboot, but perhaps we could say "The torch was once again passed on to a new generation of actors in 2011's , which created an alternate reality and returned the focus back to James T. Kirk and Spock." Curious Onlooker (talk) 05:10, December 9, 2012 (UTC) :I don't mind mentioning that they started making alt-reality movies, but saying "the torch was passed" suggests something like what happened in in where TNG characters appeared in the movie and literally did so- which they didn't. 31dot (talk) 12:04, December 9, 2012 (UTC) I suppose. Feel free to play around with the wording. My point was that this is the kind of talk you hear these days. That seems to be what the anon was getting at as well: that there aren't any new TNG movies in the foreseeable future. Curious Onlooker (talk) 22:25, December 9, 2012 (UTC)